Hey George. Yeah, sounds like you're being hit by the archive bit thing.
If you set a system environment variable on such a win32 machine
NSR_AVOID_ARCHIVE
to a non-zero value (i.e. "1" or "true")
your problem may go away. At our site we have seen this behavior exactly
when our virus software resets the archive bit low after scanning files on
a nightly basis.
-ty
Phillip T. ("Ty") Young, DMA
Backup/Recovery Systems Mgr.
Information Services & Technologies
i2 Technologies, Inc.
George Sinclair
<George.Sinclair@
NOAA.GOV> To
Sent by: Legato NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
NetWorker cc
discussion
<NETWORKER@LISTMA Subject
IL.TEMPLE.EDU> [Networker] Why large incrementals
on MS?
06/24/2004 09:03
AM
Please respond to
george.sinclair@n
oaa.gov
Hi,
We've been noticing that a specific MS NT machine is backing up a large
quantity of data during incrementals -- much more than we would expect.
The other thing we've noticed is that the size of the savesets always
seems to be the same for these incrementals. However, the size of these
incrementals, while they are bigger than we would think, are still much
smaller than the fulls, so that's good.
We have 3 client instances for this host. The first instance backs up
'All' and uses the following custom directive:
<< "C:\" >>
skip: pagefile.sys
skip: Recycler
<< "C:\DIR" >>
+null: *.*
<< "C:\winnt\temp" >>
+skip: .?* *.*
The next 2 client instances back up various specific paths under C:\DIR
(e.g. C:\DIR\A-B, C:\DIR\C-F ...) and these are the ones that we've been
seeing these large incrementals on. Each client instance uses the
regular directive: 'NT standard directives'. We have scaled back the
frequency of the fulls on this client, so it's now running fulls every
other month ... actually, the first week of every third month, but there
have been some file systems that forced a full prior, probably due to
the fact that the client index just ran out of space. I have since
increased it from 2 months browse to 3 months browse, and I'm hoping
that will resolve that, but still doesn't explain why the incrementals
are so large in some cases. Should just be backing up everything that's
changed since the previous backup, so maybe a lot is actually changing?
Or maybe something is causing the time stamps to change? My MS admin
tells me that nothing should be changing that much on there, and not
that much is being added.
Sometime ago, I'd heard on this listing something about how the archive
bit can get turned on for files on an MS system, or something like that,
wherein this causes NetWorker to backup the file even though it hasn't
changed? I might have my terms wrong there, or maybe I'm confused with
something else. I don't know much about MS, but our MS admin tells me
that these incrementals should not be that large. We are running virus
protection software. Could this be causing this?
I just need to get some ideas together so when I sit down with our MS
pundit, I can tell him what we need to be looking for that might be
causing this behavior. We just want to make certain that we've checked
all the "known" causes of this.
We're running 6.1.1 on our server (Solaris 2.8).
Any advice on clues to look for?
Thanks.
George
--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
|
